|
Post by dgriffin on Mar 24, 2009 17:41:05 GMT -5
Swimmy, thanks for the summary. I'm dimly aware of most of it. I hesitate to continue in this thread, because I have no direct interest in New Hartford. You could say it's none of my business. What I reacted to was not the issue, but the manner in which I saw the attack conducted. It smacked of inept propaganda by a Topix poster. In my most humble opinion, of course. As I mentioned in a post above, I have no axe to grind with NHOnline or NHCC. In fact, I wish them well in their endeavor, but ... excuse my effrontery ... think they might conduct their efforts in a manner that doesn't reflect poorly on everyone who opposes town government. There are a lot of people in New Hartford who want change. NHCC/Online doesn't have exclusive rights to the issues, even when they are in the forefront of the fight (I assume.) I am absolutely sure they would admit that point, so why would their representatives not be more careful when publicly posting their arguments? Here's what I saw. I read about a controversy in the newspaper www.uticaod.com/news/x1465808143/Over-time-town-become-more-reliant-on-accounting-firmthat quoted representatives on both sides of the issue, including the NHCC. On Topix, poster Tweedle Dum claims the reporter "distort(ed) the story and refuse(s) to print the facts." Additonally, Tweedle Dum asserts "the town's statements are all lies." He points to NHOnline, where he says "the real story ... will be unfolding." That's WILL, future tense. For himself, Tweedle Dum can only offer "the fact that Earle Reed runs with Micahel Arcuri, and that Frank Basile's wife is the first cousin to Michael Arcuri." One wonders why T.Dum finds blood and sociability among politicians unusual. Next, Archangel posts here, in support of T.Dum, "Just saw this on Topix.com." (No citation, assume Tweedle Dum's post, above.) And, "It looks like the Utica O.D. is up to their biased reporting [again]" and "When will this O.D. Reporter start printing the facts? I guess never or is Donna Donovan pulling his chain?" These are serious charges. Exactly what in the OD article is a lie? But when I ask, I'm told to go educate myself on another website. I haven't ... and don't plan to ... spend any time on NHOnline. I don't have a personal interest in the issues. I'll assume the group has marshalled their arguments to the best of their ability. But I do grow tired of reading the posts of those who throw charges around without being specific and without substantiating them in the same post or without factual references. (An entire website is not a reference.) It just makes their arguments appear more emotional than legitimate. Such techniques do a disservice to everyone on their side, which is lamentable when they're fighting for the community and taxpayers. I suppose I'll again be called anal. So be it.
|
|
|
Post by Swimmy on Mar 24, 2009 20:30:22 GMT -5
That's why i tried to summarize it as best I could. But if you do ever wander on to the website, you'll come across a lot of well-supported and documented statements.
And, as I stated earlier, unless you're intimately involved, there really is no need to delve into it much. I tried to explain why sometimes it comes across as unsubstantiated, but many of the comments in the threads, like topix, are designed to grab your attention and insight you to visit the sight for a more in depth and substantiated discourse.
I can certainly understand your frustration. I have a similar frustration when it comes to the Oneida Indian Nation. It is annoying when people write, "King Hal is going to pay big time. They're going to lose and lose big this year." But there is never any supporting evidence. And the few decisions issued so far this year are easily distinguishable from the Oneidas' situation. For example, the New York State Court of Appeals determined that the state was right in raiding Seneca stores for cigarrettes that did not have a tax stamp on them and that the Senecas would not have those goods returned. I have not had a chance to read the decision. But everyone wishing to see the Oneidas shut down was quick to imply that this decision was the end all for the Oneidas. To this day, none of them can or will answer whether the raids were conducted on reservation land or on trust land or on land that is considered taxable. There is a big difference. If it was on trust land, then it would contradict federal law that says trust land is exempt from state law and state regulation. If it was on reservation land, the U.S. Sup. Ct. has said it is legal. And there is no issue in the latter.
I digress. Hope you're having a pleasant evening. :-)
|
|
|
Post by Swimmy on Mar 24, 2009 20:32:00 GMT -5
bobbbiez. Honestly, I have not had much time to do anything that is not work related. But some things are in the works right now that could give me some extra time. Literally I've worked every day of the week for the past month and a half.
|
|
|
Post by Swimmy on Mar 24, 2009 20:38:07 GMT -5
yes clipper, i've been putting in a lot of hours. even my supervisor noticed but doesn't seem to care because she's a work-aholic also. I'm overwhelmed but every time i try to mention it to my supervisor she seems to brush it off and offer suggestions on how to better organize myself. sunday and saturday were the first two days i did not do any work in a long time.
it would be fine if there were actual programs for attorneys in public interest law that were more effective in assisting with loan debt. But i'm too poor to go out anyway, even if i had the time to. So far, there are only 2: one requires me to stay poor for ten years and the other only accepts 400 people out of a nationwide pool of a couple hundred thousand (i applied for it and was denied).
|
|
|
Post by swampfox on Mar 24, 2009 21:37:24 GMT -5
I just came across this on Google...
Google Web Alert for: Concerned Citizens For Honest & Open Government
No new contract for accounting firm in New Hartford - BASILE,CPA ... Concerned Citizens For Honest & Open Government exposed an illegal procurement of Mr. Basile's services which violated the Town's procurement regulations ... I think it pretty much speaks for itself.
|
|
|
Post by bobbbiez on Mar 24, 2009 21:45:46 GMT -5
Swimmy, just let me know when you find anything out and if we can proceed with it. Thanks sweetie. Make sure ya get your rest in between all the work on your shoulders.
|
|
|
Post by clarencebunsen on Mar 25, 2009 21:26:49 GMT -5
It is with considerable disappointment in myself that I fail in my resolve not to reply to this thread. It is like putting a glass of wine and a plate of my wife’s brownies in front of me when I have just had my semi annual lecture from my doctor on weight control (I have to get a fatter doctor).
My objections to nhonline and their spill over onto this forum are two: their tone and their content.
Tone: Everything is at high volume and written with caps lock, from Ark’s made up coverup of the Scully landfill which was covered for many years to Swamps outrage at being asked his name when picking up a school board petition. “Corrupt as corrupt can get” is typical of the hyperbole. Not even close. The title of this thread illustrates the point.
Content: I find the heavy reliance on veiled allegations and innuendo objectionable.
Veiled allegation typified by the suggestion that Chief Philo orchestrated a campaign of fake 911 call in. No allegation was made or evidence offered, just suggestions.
Innuendo: By placing Roger Cleveland’s name and subpoena in the same sentence a connection can be made without actually alleging anything. Even less substantial than the Philo allegation.
My final objection (I realize that that makes the third of 2) is something that I often see on the pages of Al Jazeera, using quotation marks around a word that is not a quotation in order to insert an air of vague suspicion.
An example would be quotes around the word appointed when referring to Jerome Donovan’s appointment as chairman of the Planning Board? Why are these needed other than to suggest that there was something illicit about the appointment?
Why not just say what you mean?
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on Mar 25, 2009 22:14:49 GMT -5
I just came across this on Google... Google Web Alert for: Concerned Citizens For Honest & Open Government No new contract for accounting firm in New Hartford - BASILE,CPA ... Concerned Citizens For Honest & Open Government exposed an illegal procurement of Mr. Basile's services which violated the Town's procurement regulations ... I think it pretty much speaks for itself. That's pretty funny, Swampfox. You're citing a Topix post! Did you realize that when you Googled?
|
|
|
Post by Swimmy on Mar 25, 2009 22:28:11 GMT -5
Tone: Everything is at high volume and written with caps lock, from Ark’s made up coverup of the Scully landfill which was covered for many years . . . I've looked at old OD articles on microfiche for other articles, but I went through with a fine toothed comb. I never such wide coverage. I remember as a little boy riding in the car down valley view and asking my parents (both new hartford residents with friends a few houses up from the cleanup site and they didn't even know) who had no idea why there was the orange fencing, etc. The sign that was posted did not state anything about a toxic cleanup. And the whole cover up theory, as I have read nhonline's blog, is that the whole mess has been deemed to be cleaned, contrary to varying reports to the DEC, NYS Sup. Ct. decisions, and other governmental agencies. So if it was so widely covered, why so little information? Why such conflicting views? All that is offered in response to nhonline is pure anecdotal evidence. [to] Swamps sic outrage at being asked his name when picking up a school board petition. “Corrupt as corrupt can get” is typical of the hyperbole. Not even close. The title of this thread illustrates the point. If you read the blog post leading to the title of the thread, you'd realize there are several untruths to the story behind Mr. Basile's contract. For example, the contract is signed before the town board approves it. There were differing advertisements for conflicting positions. Not actual RFP period. All of this is backed by FOIL-ed documents that nhonline has posted for your convenience. I don't find a whole lot of innuendo. Content: I find the heavy reliance on veiled allegations and innuendo objectionable. Are you referring to when Roger Cleveland signed a SR4 report indicating that there was a public meeting regarding stormwater, when in fact, there was no such meeting held? And only after Concerned Citizens discovered that there was no such meeting, the town planner indicated that the public meeting was held during the planning board's regularly scheduled meeting, which was still held AFTER the SR4 report was signed and submitted to the state. Or perhaps you are referring to the Stormwater Committee closing its meetings to the public at Town Attorney Green's behest? Maybe you're referring to the New Hartford School Board using school money to build a business park. And when asked where their authority laid, their attorney pointed to a section of the General Municipal law that grants an IDA the authority. Anyone who knows a thing about administrative law knows that an agency is a creature of state law and it's powers cannot exceed the scope of its enabling statute. Well, there is the State Education law that establishes school boards and is very unambiguous when it says that money should be spent on school-related activities, which include infrastructure for schools, not business parks. In fact, there is no statutory or judicial interpretation that grants a school board the authority to build a business park. Perhaps, the innuendo comes from Ms. Fairbrother's overtime? A salaried position that is apparently not exempt from FLSA? Where Ms. Fairbrother never made any request during the Humphrey administration; where the Humphrey administration determined her position was exempt; where a similar position in the county government was determined to be exempt from overtime; and where the overtime is far more than her salary. What about the letter from the DOT stating that it would not proceed with any further plans to put an intersection on 840 until the town conducts an updated GEIS with public input? Maybe the town's reaction to that letter by putting the traffic light on rte 5 could be innuendo, but it's a logical and reasonable theory. I will agree that there are times when the tone is overly loud, but I think it's justified for two reasons: 1. it's a blog trying to grab a reader's attention where the only media taken seriously is the garbage on the od and 2. it's frustrating to really see and really read what is going on in new hartford, kinda hard not to be loud.
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on Mar 25, 2009 23:08:46 GMT -5
Swimmy wrote: I will agree that there are times when the tone is overly loud, but I think it's justified for two reasons: 1. it's a blog trying to grab a reader's attention where the only media taken seriously is the garbage on the od and 2. it's frustrating to really see and really read what is going on in new hartford, kinda hard not to be loud. Maybe, but it detracts from their arguments to a great degree, and will lose them support eventually. Taking myself as an example, from prior discussion on this forum I was predisposed to think of the group as fair minded. I believe you were primarily responsible for my opinion, Swimmy. Since this thread (and another), I'm beginning to wonder.
|
|
|
Post by swampfox on Mar 26, 2009 6:14:50 GMT -5
Clarencebunsen and Dave write just to write whereas Concerned Citizens writes with passion supported with facts not idle gossip.
Contrary to your assertions that they are "loud," they are far from that. A header line is not considered loud. It merely is there to catch someone's attention.
Incidenally, this forum is for anyone who wishes to discuss issues, regardless of where they are from. Who died and made you two the arbiters of justice?
Perhaps, when sanity rules...you two will get off your high horses and entertain those who come into this group.
Swimmy is correct. Concerned Citizens has brought more factual information to the forefront. Without them, it appears town officials would violate every law on the books. If you want to do some public service stop spreading untruths.
|
|
|
Post by Swimmy on Mar 26, 2009 7:07:30 GMT -5
Fair enough, Dave. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
I just hope that on the issues where their tone is not so loud, and there are many instances, you take an open-minded look. I'm not a member of the group, so I won't try to rationalize or explain -- any further than I already have attempted -- why they have chosen their writing style.
But there is a lot of information they have uncovered throughout the course of the organization's existence that is pretty damning of new hartford.
In any case, I'm done posting in this thread. For those interested in reading facts, not innuendo, when it comes to the goings on at new hartford, I suggest you read the blog posts where the statements are backed with quoted passages from FOIL-ed documents that are published online for your review.
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on Mar 26, 2009 8:29:14 GMT -5
Clarencebunsen and Dave write just to write whereas Concerned Citizens writes with passion supported with facts not idle gossip. Geeez, lighten up. OK, one more time, Swamp: I'm arguing with you (and Arky,) not Concerned Citizens. About the techniques you use to when you post. And I'm not supported by anything but common sense. Incidentally, this forum is for anyone who wishes to discuss issues, regardless of where they are from. Who died and made you two the arbiters of justice? Well, thank you. And that's what I'm doing. Perhaps, when sanity rules...you two will get off your high horses Hahahaha! Can't speak for CB, but I don't ever plan to get off my high horse!
|
|
|
Post by Clipper on Mar 26, 2009 10:49:50 GMT -5
Swampfox, many of us have followed NH politics for a long time, with interest, but as persons with no "dog in the fight". All parties involved in this little snit have valid points, but the criticism is of the writing style, not the writer. As for Clarence and Dave writing just to write, I don't find that to be true. They are ALWAYS well informed contributors to the forum, and they DO document most of what they write, and base it on factual information.
Many of us have followed Concerned Citizen's since the days of the OD forums, and followed with interest. MOST of their information IS factual, and well stated, but in the cases being argued here, it is not necessarily so. I put no faith whatsoever in ANYTHING posted on Topix, and I don't personally find it to be a site that I would quote without some in-depth personal research.
I think the secret here is to discuss it in a civil manner, and to agree to disagree, if it comes to that. NOBODY on this site has any personal vendettas aimed at any other members, or at least they don't air them on the forum. I think the secret is to look at it in a non personal manner. They are not pointing a finger at the blog itself, or the mission it has. They simply are making observations that could possibly be construed as constructive, and helpful to the blog.
As you stated, it is a discussion forum and anyone is allowed to post on here. Members ALL take a jab at a thread that they don't agree with. THAT is what makes it a discussion forum. When one takes it to a personal level, that is when it is moderated by the staff. The only arbiters of justice on this forum, are Ralph, Kim, and myself, and we are hesitant, but not shy about arbitrating when necessary.
We all have a horse to ride. Some are higher than others. As you see in the cartoon, Dave's is actually quite low, LOL.
Let's just try to turn the burner down and get back to civil, and meaningful discussion. We are happy to have you guys and gals from New Hartford to contribute to the discussion, but it is a discussion forum and you will not always find agreement here, any more than you do anywhere else. It is a discussion board, not a bulletin board. What goes up on the board may not find support from all the other members. That is a fact that we all need to keep in mind.
Concerned Citizen's blog is a "bulletin board" controlled by the authors. Clipper's Corner is an open forum, moderated and administered by a staff of three. Have a good day all.
|
|
|
Post by swampfox on Mar 26, 2009 11:16:13 GMT -5
I respectfully disagree that they are well-informed. The discourse that has gone on here typifies one's inability to grasp the message that one articulates.
When all I see as responses are caricatures inserted into one's remarks...I begin to wonder.
I will not be posting here, however, I will surely be a strong supporter of CC. At least what they say is of the utmost integrity as compared to the writings of the Observer Dispatch.
Incidenally, I agree with your point on being civil in these discussions. Dave and Clarence, in my humble opinion are not humble but someone's attack dogs. My perception but a true one.
Thank you for allowing me to post, however, I bid you farewell.
|
|